Six (6) sensible and simple suggestions others have made which warrant consideration

[Altheran]

The problem is you are oversimplifying. How often do you get sustained fire against a competent target that isn't snared or otherwise dead in the water? At long ranges your example probably holds, at close ranged the higher rate weapon is likely to only get half or a third of their shots to connect. If a pilot has decent aim, they can get most of their slower shots to connect in the same time period since they don't have to keep a bead on their opponent.

 

Pure math doesn't necessarily work out in a live scenario.

Never implied to be universally true, neither intended to cover all possible scenari.

 

Just giving a simplistic example of when increasing RoF isn't a nerf to show that the "obvious solution" as some people make it sound like is not so obviously working.

 

Demonstrations of concepts always go with simple, unrealistic examples.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Altheran

[Gavin_Kelvar]

There are currently 2 viable T2 scout builds, that are about equally powerful, although they excel in different circumstances: BLC + clusters, and Quads + pods. Both builds allow incredible burst when combined with offensive CDs like BO, TT, and offensive crew abilities. You propose to nerf both cluster missiles and BLC but leave quads and pods untouched, which would mean that the optimal build for T2 scouts would become just quads and pods. I really don't think either BLC or cluster need to be adjusted. What needs to be adjusted are the offensive CDs that allow too much burst (most particularly TT and BO).

 

Well as I said in an earlier post the problem is that BLC + clusters doesn't meaningfully sacrifice your ability to engage armored targets. Nerfing/removing BLC AP would make a battlescout have to make the meaningful choice between having BLC + clusters for one of the best close range dogfighting builds against lightly armored (and typically very mobile) targets at the cost of lacking good capability to take on armor. Or they can go with quads and pods for some ability to take out armored targets at the cost of not being as well suited against lightly armored, highly mobile targets (assuming here that said target takes manual evasive action to make it more difficult to land hits with pods).

 

Interestingly we both seemed to make the same arguments for keeping HLC, protons, and thermites 100% AP. Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks leaving those 3 weapons untouched would help strikers by (finally) clearly defining their role as anti-armor/bomber fighters. (IMO the line is currently fuzzy between the role of strikes and scouts so clearly defining scouts as the best ship for engaging lightly armored targets and strikers as the best against heavily armored targets would be a good thing).

[FridgeLM]

3) Make EMP Missile disable Secondary Weapons instead of #1 System Ability. This would make EMP Missile much more universally useful defensive weapon against all opponents while keeping its utility against Bombers relatively the same. It would fit even better with the T3 Scout and Strike.

 

Disagree with this one. This'd allow minelayers and drone carriers to continue using their drones and mines. All it'd stop from them then are seismic and seeker mines. Basically the proposed idea is a tradeoff, not a buff.

[Altheran]

Disagree with this one. This'd allow minelayers and drone carriers to continue using their drones and mines. All it'd stop from them then are seismic and seeker mines. Basically the proposed idea is a tradeoff, not a buff.

 

Personally, I'd put the energy drains on electronic warfare type weapons/power like EMP, and put thing like "can't use shield abilities" upgrades on some anti-shield weapons like Ion.

 

I think that would make more sense, but hey, that's me...

[Kuciwalker]

I'm more scared of a newly placed seismic mine than a newly placed drone.

[Nemarus]

Disagree with this one. This'd allow minelayers and drone carriers to continue using their drones and mines. All it'd stop from them then are seismic and seeker mines. Basically the proposed idea is a tradeoff, not a buff.

 

The vast majority of times you're engaging a Dronecarrier, it's already got its drone out. And given the cooldown on a drone is 1 minute, it's doubtful the EMP Missile would actually affect when a Dronecarrier can cast its next drone. The EMP Missile's debuff is likely to be eclipsed by the drone's own cooldown.

 

And either way, EMP Missile will still disable an existing drone's ability to fire for 15 seconds.

 

Against a Minelayer, it's a wash. You either block a System Mine with the current EMP Missile, or you block a Secondary Mine with the proposed EMP Missile. Personally, I'd rather disable a Seismic Mine before any other, as it represents the gravest threat to myself and my allies.

 

The real difference with the proposed EMP Missile is that it suddenly becomes very useful against lots of other ships--all the time.

 

Against Scouts, the current EMP Missile has the potential to deny the Scout their BO/TT. That's useful, but there's a high chance it's already on cooldown anyway, meaning your EMP Missile accomplished nothing. But denying a Scout 15 seconds of Rocket Pods or Cluster Missiles or Sabotage Probe drastically reduces their DPS in every situation.

 

Against Strikes and Gunships, the current EMP Missile's effect is very awkward. You either disable their ability to switch weapons (which is an inconvenience at best), or you disable a Command ability that already has a 1 minute cooldown that likely eclipses the EMP Missile's debuff. But the proposed EMP Missile would deny the Strikes the use of their missiles and torpedoes (including other EMP Missiles!) for 15 seconds--once again a pretty effective tactical debuff.

 

Against Gunships, even the proposed EMP Missile likely won't have much effect. The moment you engage a Gunship to lock onto it, it'll be on the run anyway, which means it's already not using its railgun. Though you will still limit the tactical options of the T2 and T3 Gunships.

 

In general, EMP Missile ends up being a defensively oriented weapon that debuffs your opponent's DPS. That seems a perfect match to the "healer" qualities of the T3 Scout and Strike, and the extreme versatility theme of the T2 Strike.

 

I'd go so far to say that this might be my favorite suggestion of the six.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Nemarus

[Ramalina]

On the mines, a compromise (if it's not too hard to code) might be the way to go. If the mine is destroyed or the bomber dies, just reduce the damage range to the trigger range.

 

That simplifies it because the red glowing sphere now becomes the danger zone, and staying out becomes very intuitive.

 

To a degree it also resembles demolition work where often the best way to deal with an explosive device is to use another explosive device to destroy it in a fashion that reduces its ability to do as much damage as it was designed to do. It may still explode, but likely in a way that poses a lesser hazard.

[Kuciwalker]

Against Gunships, even the proposed EMP Missile likely won't have much effect. The moment you engage a Gunship to lock onto it, it'll be on the run anyway, which means it's already not using its railgun. Though you will still limit the tactical options of the T2 and T3 Gunships.

 

Actually this makes me think it is a bad idea. Turning off a gunship's railgun is basically the same as turning off the gunship. Versus even a bomber you are normally just disabling half of it.

[Nemarus]

Actually this makes me think it is a bad idea. Turning off a gunship's railgun is basically the same as turning off the gunship. Versus even a bomber you are normally just disabling half of it.

 

I'd defer to your judgment, but I would think that whether I'm chasing a Gunship with Concussion Missiles or EMP Missiles, the Gunship is going to hear a lock-on and get on the move--and thus would not able to use its railgun. So would there be a big difference?

 

Also, hitting a Scout with an Ion Railgun is basically the same as turning off the Scout

[Verain]

I read all of these as, some jerk in a scout is able to get on my rear at less than 500 meters and kill my gunship please stop him so I can go back to sniping noobs, or jeez I am such a horrible bomber pilot someone was able to kill my sats turrets and me by themselves.

 

Nemarus has already responded, but I'll throw in here too. Your assertions are ludicrous, but lets take them one by one.

 

First, Nemarus repeated the relatively common idea about nerfing armor penetration. On live, armor penetration is FULL armor pen- it ignores it. The proposal would leave some merit to damage reduction. Nemarus also brought up that charged plating would need some adjustments in that world, as it wouldn't have a hard counter and it would probably be too good.

 

Your first pretend thing- that this is gunship QQ- is obviously not the case. Gunships don't rely on damage reduction, and would gain almost no survival out of this. Bombers do, but only when running charged plating- which is just one bomber, the boy bomber (the girl bomber has repair probe INSTEAD OF charged plating). This would make them more survivable, but with a charged plating nerf as he discusses, it would actually make them MORE vulnerable to other ships.

 

Second, he addresses burst laser cannon. This particular nerf has everyone I know in favor of it, because it doesn't take away the uniqueness or dps while it does reduce the burst potential. This nerf would slightly weaken type 2 scouts and type 1 gunships, both of whom are probably a bit too strong. Aces who play every ship are not in favor of this because we think "our gunships or bombers die too fast". It's for a simple reason: BLC is too good, and the devs are wrong about it being fair. They aren't VERY wrong, but they are wrong. Many players saying this, are, I can assure you, better than you on a scout, and love their scouts. You are obviously not rational on scout nerfs, based on your rather ludicrous past assertion- once you said that it's good that the battle scout is overpowered because it's the only thing that makes the game any fun when you are outmatched, a ludicrous argument that can be used to justify any imbalance.

 

The third opinion of his is, IMO, not a very good one. I feel that (2) is more than enough nerf to BLCs, and honestly, it may be overnerfed when combined with (1). But regardless of that, he isn't echoing this idea because he dies too much against scouts, it's because BLC is generally too good. I don't feel this is needed at all.

 

Didn't comment on the thread about this, because I don't see it happening but there are plenty of reasons not to do this. Not the least is not everyone plays in premades and having a secondary weapon they can actually use in a one on one or one on two is important.

 

No, this is not relevant. It has nothing to do with premades, or even teamwork, but since you don't have anyone to GSF with I guess you are just gonna describe it in alien terms because you have no firsthand experience at all.

 

Clusters are probably too good. Despite Pincer's claims to have shot someone 4 times with clusters (over 3500 damage!), the fact remains that clusters are the highest sustained dps missile because their reload is essentially nothing, for no real reason (we'd expect a low LOCKON for a close range missile with the lowest damage, but RELOAD seems unrelated). But a mild nerf here wouldn't wreck the missile- the bigger deal is that the long reload missile- which includes Ion and EMP for some reason, along with thermite and proton- would then be able to actually threaten a target who uses a missile break but doesn't bother to be near line of sight. Given that protons are iconic and meant to be threatening, as well as being on a ton of ships, I would think that they shouldn't have a reload time essentially equal to the missile break. If someone is willing to float in space forever, they should just take missiles to the face all day long- currently only true with concussions, and super true with clusters.

 

So what I read this as is we were double teaming someone and had him spinning to try and shoot the bait but he was actually able to kill one of us with his weapons and then was able to go on and kill the chaser please stop that.

 

Since I was the one who wrote that thread, no.

 

No this is not it. When I'm in a premade, the only possible loss is to another premade. Solo pilots never outfly two of us- that's simply not possible. You think every idea to make the game better is a request to somehow buff premades. Let me explain again: premades will always win against non premades, and that will never change. None of my ideas are there to widen this gap, they are to make the game deeper and more interesting.

 

Here is what it is, which you would gather if you trusted your eyes instead of whatever predetermined conclusion you believe: on live, there are weapons with really long reload times. Those weapons don't need those long reload times to be fair. The damage or effect of the weapon is normally balanced entirely by the lockon time, range, reticule size, and properties of the missile. If you could view breakdowns by component, you would see protons and thermites doing so ludicrously less than clusters that you would be shocked. It's also frustrating to fight a bomber with protons, because the bomber just doesn't care about a single one, and the next one takes so long to come back. Given that a bomber is one of the few targets that can actually be hit with a proton, you would expect it to be a good choice there.

 

 

As it is, many of these missiles are niche choices, or are the only choices on niche ships. Bring the outliers closer to the center will

 

 

You know what?

 

 

No, you nailed it. It was because some random foodship killed me and stasie and drako and gunsheep when we were on our Imperiums. All of us because our thermites and protons were on cooldown, because he didn't, uh, take the bait, or whatever. That's why I write everything. Totes. YOU NAILED IT BRO

Edited May 30, 2014 by Verain

[Kuciwalker]

I'd defer to your judgment, but I would think that whether I'm chasing a Gunship with Concussion Missiles or EMP Missiles, the Gunship is going to hear a lock-on and get on the move--and thus would not able to use its railgun. So would there be a big difference?

 

So I will moderate my claim a bit, because really a gunship should never be hit by any missile with a longer lock-on than a cluster. It is just not something you can afford in any circumstance and therefore something you should work hard enough to prevent. If you fail... then you are going to die anyway, so it doesn't really matter how.

 

That said, the consequences if this does hit are suddenly more dire than any other 3s missile*. It's already really really ugly to lose your shield or your engine ability (which T5 emp does); losing your railgun (now a failgun) breaks defensive gunship in a fundamental way.

 

The way a gunship has to fly defensively against a competent scout is in a series of head-to-heads where you pop a defensive cooldown (BR or DF) at just the moment you come into the scout's engagement range, and then use the time it takes the scout to turn around for another pass to regen engines and shields. The only reason this works is because the threat of a railgun forces the scout to close the gap quickly - which reduces its actual time on target in engagement range (because it has to overshoot**). Without the threat of a railgun the scout can close leisurely and destroy you.

 

I'll admit that I've also been thinking of this a bit from the perspective of the EMP system ability (which currently has the same mechanics as the EMP missile) which is much, much easier to land and already very good. Restricted to the missile, my objections are much weaker.

 

* Possible exception of sabo probe... but it only lasts 7s!

** Unless it has retro thrusters... but those actually make barrel roll much, much better as an escape tool.

 

Also, hitting a Scout with an Ion Railgun is basically the same as turning off the Scout

 

The last two nerfs to ion have made it pointless to use on scouts, you just slug them.

[tunewalker]

The vast majority of times you're engaging a Dronecarrier, it's already got its drone out. And given the cooldown on a drone is 1 minute, it's doubtful the EMP Missile would actually affect when a Dronecarrier can cast its next drone. The EMP Missile's debuff is likely to be eclipsed by the drone's own cooldown.

 

And either way, EMP Missile will still disable an existing drone's ability to fire for 15 seconds.

 

Against a Minelayer, it's a wash. You either block a System Mine with the current EMP Missile, or you block a Secondary Mine with the proposed EMP Missile. Personally, I'd rather disable a Seismic Mine before any other, as it represents the gravest threat to myself and my allies.

 

The real difference with the proposed EMP Missile is that it suddenly becomes very useful against lots of other ships--all the time.

 

Against Scouts, the current EMP Missile has the potential to deny the Scout their BO/TT. That's useful, but there's a high chance it's already on cooldown anyway, meaning your EMP Missile accomplished nothing. But denying a Scout 15 seconds of Rocket Pods or Cluster Missiles or Sabotage Probe drastically reduces their DPS in every situation.

 

Against Strikes and Gunships, the current EMP Missile's effect is very awkward. You either disable their ability to switch weapons (which is an inconvenience at best), or you disable a Command ability that already has a 1 minute cooldown that likely eclipses the EMP Missile's debuff. But the proposed EMP Missile would deny the Strikes the use of their missiles and torpedoes (including other EMP Missiles!) for 15 seconds--once again a pretty effective tactical debuff.

 

Against Gunships, even the proposed EMP Missile likely won't have much effect. The moment you engage a Gunship to lock onto it, it'll be on the run anyway, which means it's already not using its railgun. Though you will still limit the tactical options of the T2 and T3 Gunships.

 

In general, EMP Missile ends up being a defensively oriented weapon that debuffs your opponent's DPS. That seems a perfect match to the "healer" qualities of the T3 Scout and Strike, and the extreme versatility theme of the T2 Strike.

 

I'd go so far to say that this might be my favorite suggestion of the six.

 

My suggestion for EMP missile, instead of it being instead of its current function make its T3 upgrade changed from the worthless "8% damage" to Locks out secondary weapons for 5-10 seconds. This would put it inline with EMP fields upgrades as Fields first upgrade reduces CD (Missiles first upgrade reduces lock time) its T2 upgrade debuffs the enemy( Missile increased radius) T3 upgrade is increased duration (the suggestion here would be short secondary disable) T4 is always missile break for multiple people (Missile is ussually range or ammo so doesnt affect the missile after fired) and both have the same T5 upgrade.

 

The difference between the missile and the system would be, The missile has ammo, and needs to successfully hit a target to be effective. Its CD time is shorter, but its activation time is longer. Its affect doesnt last as long, but it affects more secondary weapons longer while the Field has a larger affect on Primary weapons (reduces accuracy) while having a similar affect on missiles as the Missile would have on all Secondaries (by breaking a missile and disallowing lock ons on team mates for a few seconds at least one person usually has to wait at least 6 seconds to fire another missile as thier missile is on CD similar effect to disabling secondaries for 5 seconds. After buff EMP field has a larger explosive radius then Missile even missing the radius buff in T4.

 

 

All-in-all this change to the T3 upgrade would put the Missile and the Field on a much more even footing with one another in my opinion.

 

 

Edit: yes the missile does damage but the damage is low on main target and laughable on secondary targets even after the "8%" upgrade in damage 8% of this missiles damage is effectively nothing.

Edited May 30, 2014 by tunewalker

[tunewalker]

So I will moderate my claim a bit, because really a gunship should never be hit by any missile with a longer lock-on than a cluster. It is just not something you can afford in any circumstance and therefore something you should work hard enough to prevent. If you fail... then you are going to die anyway, so it doesn't really matter how.

 

That said, the consequences if this does hit are suddenly more dire than any other 3s missile*. It's already really really ugly to lose your shield or your engine ability (which T5 emp does); losing your railgun (now a failgun) breaks defensive gunship in a fundamental way.

 

The way a gunship has to fly defensively against a competent scout is in a series of head-to-heads where you pop a defensive cooldown (BR or DF) at just the moment you come into the scout's engagement range, and then use the time it takes the scout to turn around for another pass to regen engines and shields. The only reason this works is because the threat of a railgun forces the scout to close the gap quickly - which reduces its actual time on target in engagement range (because it has to overshoot**). Without the threat of a railgun the scout can close leisurely and destroy you.

 

I'll admit that I've also been thinking of this a bit from the perspective of the EMP system ability (which currently has the same mechanics as the EMP missile) which is much, much easier to land and already very good. Restricted to the missile, my objections are much weaker.

 

* Possible exception of sabo probe... but it only lasts 7s!

** Unless it has retro thrusters... but those actually make barrel roll much, much better as an escape tool.

 

 

 

The last two nerfs to ion have made it pointless to use on scouts, you just slug them.

 

what do you think of my suggestion below with the 3rd upgrade on the missile being a lock out of secondaries for 5 seconds.

 

Currently the EMP hitting a Gunship and the Gunship can almost laugh it off by comparison to being hit by the other missiles (remember that first you actually have to land this missile which usually means the engines and shields are already on CD any way) If they landed an upgraded Ion you just lost some engine power and are moving at 40% speed and have no shields.... your pretty much dead. If you got hit by an upgraded Concussion.... basically same boat as the Ion, Shields are gone if they have the right upgrade you are slowed and lost engine power you are pretty much dead.

 

You get hit with an EMP missile, well usually you ahve to wait maybe 5-10 seconds longer for the engine OR shield ability (not both) but you are slowed in no way, your shields are still full strength and your hull has taken a laughable amount of damage. You could still easily survive.

 

With this at least if you were dumb enough to eat the missile you cant sit their and finish the railgun and you might actually die similar to when the other 2 missiles hit you.

[tunewalker]

Nemarus has already responded, but I'll throw in here too. Your assertions are ludicrous, but lets take them one by one.

 

First, Nemarus repeated the relatively common idea about nerfing armor penetration. On live, armor penetration is FULL armor pen- it ignores it. The proposal would leave some merit to damage reduction. Nemarus also brought up that charged plating would need some adjustments in that world, as it wouldn't have a hard counter and it would probably be too good.

 

Your first pretend thing- that this is gunship QQ- is obviously not the case. Gunships don't rely on damage reduction, and would gain almost no survival out of this. Bombers do, but only when running charged plating- which is just one bomber, the boy bomber (the girl bomber has repair probe INSTEAD OF charged plating). This would make them more survivable, but with a charged plating nerf as he discusses, it would actually make them MORE vulnerable to other ships.

 

Second, he addresses burst laser cannon. This particular nerf has everyone I know in favor of it, because it doesn't take away the uniqueness or dps while it does reduce the burst potential. This nerf would slightly weaken type 2 scouts and type 1 gunships, both of whom are probably a bit too strong. Aces who play every ship are not in favor of this because we think "our gunships or bombers die too fast". It's for a simple reason: BLC is too good, and the devs are wrong about it being fair. They aren't VERY wrong, but they are wrong. Many players saying this, are, I can assure you, better than you on a scout, and love their scouts. You are obviously not rational on scout nerfs, based on your rather ludicrous past assertion- once you said that it's good that the battle scout is overpowered because it's the only thing that makes the game any fun when you are outmatched, a ludicrous argument that can be used to justify any imbalance.

 

The third opinion of his is, IMO, not a very good one. I feel that (2) is more than enough nerf to BLCs, and honestly, it may be overnerfed when combined with (1). But regardless of that, he isn't echoing this idea because he dies too much against scouts, it's because BLC is generally too good. I don't feel this is needed at all.

 

 

 

No, this is not relevant. It has nothing to do with premades, or even teamwork, but since you don't have anyone to GSF with I guess you are just gonna describe it in alien terms because you have no firsthand experience at all.

 

Clusters are probably too good. Despite Pincer's claims to have shot someone 4 times with clusters (over 3500 damage!), the fact remains that clusters are the highest sustained dps missile because their reload is essentially nothing, for no real reason (we'd expect a low LOCKON for a close range missile with the lowest damage, but RELOAD seems unrelated). But a mild nerf here wouldn't wreck the missile- the bigger deal is that the long reload missile- which includes Ion and EMP for some reason, along with thermite and proton- would then be able to actually threaten a target who uses a missile break but doesn't bother to be near line of sight. Given that protons are iconic and meant to be threatening, as well as being on a ton of ships, I would think that they shouldn't have a reload time essentially equal to the missile break. If someone is willing to float in space forever, they should just take missiles to the face all day long- currently only true with concussions, and super true with clusters.

 

 

 

Since I was the one who wrote that thread, no.

 

No this is not it. When I'm in a premade, the only possible loss is to another premade. Solo pilots never outfly two of us- that's simply not possible. You think every idea to make the game better is a request to somehow buff premades. Let me explain again: premades will always win against non premades, and that will never change. None of my ideas are there to widen this gap, they are to make the game deeper and more interesting.

 

Here is what it is, which you would gather if you trusted your eyes instead of whatever predetermined conclusion you believe: on live, there are weapons with really long reload times. Those weapons don't need those long reload times to be fair. The damage or effect of the weapon is normally balanced entirely by the lockon time, range, reticule size, and properties of the missile. If you could view breakdowns by component, you would see protons and thermites doing so ludicrously less than clusters that you would be shocked. It's also frustrating to fight a bomber with protons, because the bomber just doesn't care about a single one, and the next one takes so long to come back. Given that a bomber is one of the few targets that can actually be hit with a proton, you would expect it to be a good choice there.

 

 

As it is, many of these missiles are niche choices, or are the only choices on niche ships. Bring the outliers closer to the center will

 

 

You know what?

 

 

No, you nailed it. It was because some random foodship killed me and stasie and drako and gunsheep when we were on our Imperiums. All of us because our thermites and protons were on cooldown, because he didn't, uh, take the bait, or whatever. That's why I write everything. Totes. YOU NAILED IT BRO

 

Just gonna say it.... this would help new players more then hurt them..... better reloads means stock rycers/stargaurds Nova and Black bolts arent going to be getting mixed messages about missiles all over the place. Swapping between missiles now has a smaller learning curve.

 

Also Armor being slightly reduced but also reducing how much armor is penetrated has the side effect of making new ships with no Armor pen (aka new players) more affective against said people running high armor builds as the armor is inherently lower thus closing the gap a little between new players and geared players.

 

 

I feel the suggestion to remove the Missile break from DF and instead make it a little more evasion would also have this affect of bringing new players more competitive as they only ever have 1 missile break so now every one new or vet would be in the same boat for missiles making a much more even playing field. Of course the Vets would still have more then plenty of advantages even with all this stuff. (high armor is still high armor, Armor Pen is still Armor pen, same with higher evasion/ longer lasting evasion CD) My suggestion for that is keep Deflection armor the same and the crew ability nulify the same just make Armor Pen 50% instead of 100% and bring Charge plating down to 30% damage reduction instead of 60% (thus max DR would be 69% but even armor piercing shots would have be facing usual DR's of 17-34%) Also drop Turret DR from 70% to 35%. I think new ships need a better shot at taking Turrets down any way.

 

 

 

Edit: though I worry about 2 things with losing Armor pen on some weapons and reducing DR from things like Charged plating and to a smaller degree turrets. Doing so Trivialized BOTH armor piercing weapons and Charged Plating. By having armor not strong enough to reduce damage into negligible state, having 50% more armor piercing isnt all that great. Why choose Heavies with Armor Pen when you can just Choose Quads with crit. The Quads will still do substantial damage to armor targets even when the CD is up while also still doing much better damage to the non armored targets. Quick example. At 3k metters Quads do 1.1k and Heavies do .8k damage to armor when fully upgrade and with Damage capaciter. If you are against a Charged PLating build as suggested the damage of the quads is now 330 per second vs the heavies which would be around 520 per second when Charge plating is up. When down it would be 720 per second vs 676 per second. Meaning that the Quads actually do More damage to both Turrets and armor targets that dont have the CD up then the designated armor piercing weapons.

 

Basically while it sounds good on paper for helping new players out, it both kills Armor builds AND the need for Armor Piercing equipment. So ya on second thought I dont think it would work.

Edited May 30, 2014 by tunewalker